This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Gun Rights are Civilization Rights
I believe, if you don't trust an independent adult to have a firearm you ultimately don't trust them enough to be in the same civilization or society as you.
There are three categories of people that nearly everyone agrees should not be allowed to own a firearm:
And you'll notice we generally don't trust these categories of people with much of anything. The first two categories of people we insist on them having guardians, or being wards of the state. The third category of people we imprison.
There are two major arguments against gun rights that I think hold the most salience for people.
Argument One: Guns are Dangerous and Unnecessary
They are undoubtedly dangerous. Their purpose is to be a weapon. But there are other things that are dangerous that we don't ban. Cars can be used to achieve mass casualty events. Bombs can be made with some commonly available materials. These other things are rarely labelled as "unnecessary" though. There are also plenty of "unnecessary" things that we don't ban. Plenty of purely recreational items and services exist. Jet skis, theme parks, cruises, large houses, etc (some of these things are even dangerous). Only the most hardcore socialists and communists want to take away all the fun toys.
There is an argument that gun advocates make that gun rights are necessary to keep the government in check. I generally like this argument, and think it is demonstrated by the level of free speech rights in places like Great Britain where guns have been successfully banned for most private "citizens".
But I'll grant for the sake of argument that guns are totally "unnecessary". And that it is the special combination of Dangerous+Unnecessary that leads people to want to ban it. Since other categories of things like Safe+Unnecessary or Dangerous+Necessary go largely unbanned and untouched.
I think the widespread existence of many "Dangerous+Necessary" demonstrates that we can trust most adults to handle dangerous things in a responsible way. We can't trust them 100% of the time. And we can't trust that there won't sometimes be negligence.
The "unnecessary" component of the argument is also a scary slippery slope to be on. People have different desires and wants. There are I think two steady states of being in regards to "unnecessary" things. Either you let everyone decide for themselves on every topic. Or you have a central authority that decides on everything for everyone. If you are willing to bite that bullet, keep in mind that it will not necessarily be you deciding what is necessary and what is not. I believe it is fully possible for such a bureaucracy to mercilessly strip every single joy out of life, and they'll fully believe they are making your life better. You'll eventually be sad enough that you'll come to the second main argument against gun rights:
Argument Two: Guns enable easier suicide
I don't have the data on hand, and I don't really want to get into an argument about said data. But it is my understanding that there is a noticeable and undeniable effect of guns on male suicide rates. This makes intuitive sense to me. Many methods of suicide require you to actively torture yourself for a short time period, drowning, hanging, cutting yourself, jumping from a very tall building etc. Or they present a chance of a failed suicide attempt that leaves you heavily injured, like jumping from not high enough, or getting in front of a moving vehicle, or pills. Guns make the attempt a more sure thing, and present an option that does not involve torturing yourself.
Something about this whole approach to suicide prevention feels very wrong. On an individual basis I think you should not commit suicide, and if someone can be talked out of suicide they generally should be talked out of it. But there are also some cases where I believe it is very cruel to prevent suicide. Medical cases for sure. But there are also people who have drawn a shit straw in life in too many ways. A bit too dumb, constant low level bad health, unable to figure out how to love or be loved, etc. A life of quiet misery. They should have an exit option, and they should have one that doesn't require them to torture themselves on the way out.
Civilization is one big nebulous agreement we have that helps us get along. But I think saying "you can't leave this agreement without being tortured", is just evil.
Forbidding gun ownership means forbidding exit, and it means you lack trust in others to such a degree that it breaks down many of the assumptions we already have about the rights and responsibilities of adults in society.
Some of the implications of my argument that I am already aware of and fine with:
Some areas that I left unaddressed to save space:
Edit: lots of good responses. I've read all of them but I'm unlikely to respond. Most of the responses were better thought out than my original post. I sometimes just have ideas or arguments kicking around in my head that need to be spilled onto paper. And I think better in response to what others say so this has helped me refine my thoughts on the subject a great deal. That synthesis of thought might end up in a future thread.
Random thoughts incoming.
What I want to say is the following: The simple question of whether and in how far regular people are allowed to arm themselves determines in how far you are looking at the citizens of a republic versus the subjects of a totalitarian state. A sliding scale, of course. And a purely abstract ideal. But it appeals to my sense of aesthetics. Who would not rather be a responsible citizen among responsible citizens, together taking charge of the safety of their public places? Are we truly a domesticated species, dependant on the state to provide us with something as essential and basic as physical protection? Is it truly our lot to be slaughtered by madmen and enemies, unarmed and helpless, with only the faintest prospect of prevention or retaliation by our protector with the monopoly on violence? Or do we take pride in this, say "you may kill me, but my countrymen will avenge me"? No of course not. Instead, we acknowledge that our western societies are absolutely fucking broken, that we cannot trust our fellow man, that we'd rather have the all-powerful and utterly unlimited state oppress us all equally and close our eyes when violence does happen and just hope blindly that it passes us by.
Historically, the open carrying of weapons was usually practiced
Open carrying weapons by civilians in peacetime and without a clear threat, as a political statement, was pretty rare to my knowledge. In fact, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head (though I'm sure it did happen sometimes). Having it as the foundational principle of a society or civilization is pretty unique.
The posession but not open carrying of weapons also shows up in some scenarios. These people would keep their weapons at home or in some other secure but for them accessible location.
Arguing for the posession of guns for suicides is...weird. Even assuming that they are indeed the safest and quickest way for someone to exit. It might make sense. But it seems pretty mraginal an argument for or against allowing regular people to own guns. Suicides are, after all, actively ceasing to be members of society and civilization - in how far should the rules of that society or civilization be shaped to account for them? To some extent perhaps, but they can hardly be central to a question as important as this.
I fully agree with your opening statement that "Gun Rights are Civilization Rights". I'd like to also ask - what other rights are there, that aren't Civilization Rights? Are there rights without civilization, in any practical, enforcable and meaningful sense?
I would truly like for civilization to manifest as a republic of fellow citizens who can be trusted to arm themselves when and where they see fit. Be that to defend themselves, each other, their abstract freedom, or just to kill themselves. And I'd sure like to explore the topic of what the necessary conditions for this are, in how far we have to accept violent criminals ruining everyone's day as a price to pay, how to limit the state's ability to interfere with legal gun ownership without going full libertarian/minarchist/anarchist, what values and habits society must cultivate to arm itself safely and productively...
...but it hardly seems to matter. Gun rights are civilizational rights. Civilization is fucked in so many ways. The culture war isn't some leisurely hobby that a few terminally online PMCs engage in. It's a real large-scale conflict with real-world implications, such as mass immigration into the west without functional assimilation, western societies' inability to deal with persistent crime, superstimulus-driven brain rot, and a clear, dry, open, solid and sunny road to eternal totalitarian dystopia through technology.
And with all of those giant, open wounds eroding the foundations of free-ish, republican-ish Western civilization, we, its citizen-subjects, have utterly paralyzed ourselves by allowing the state to assume ever greater power, by limited our control over it by handing it off to distant elites, and by letting ourselves be divided by partisan conflict that neither side manages to win conclusively. Meanwhile, said state, unchecked and ever growing, does laps around us.
If there ever was such a thing as the free citizen of a western republic who went armed without ill intent as a matter of course, then his days are long over and he's exceedingly unlikely to come back.
This was your daily doompost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link